Re: jargon translation up-front in doc (was: Menu suggestion)

[Kim F. Storm]

"Drew Adams" <address@hidden> writes:

> That might be good (though excessive hyperlinking can be obfuscating, so
> occurrences should *not* all become hyperlinks automatically). If we
> provided such hyperlinking, programmers should have a way to explicitly,
> selectively apply it (just as they can selectively expand command names in
> doc strings to provide key bindings: \\[foobar]).
> 
> However, that does *not* address the main issue I raised. (Eli also missed
> it, so I must not be making myself clear.)
> 
> Explaining our jargon is one thing. Come across "yank" somewhere, don't know
> what it means, click it, get the definition - great.
> 
> What's missing is the set of common terms as user **entry points**. We
> should *mention* those terms, and then provide a bridge to our similar
> terms. Just defining our own terms doesn't provide this learning bridge.

I think a very brief "emacs terms" section at the start of the tutorial would
be ok.

> 
> A user should be able to do `M-x command-apropos paste' and come up with the
> *few, common* commands that involve pasting.

Did you actually try C-h a paste RET ?

(clue: apropos already knows that paste is synonymous with yank)


-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk